M/S FLAMINGO HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GANDHIDHAM., GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with the above directions

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Flamingo Hotels P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-1 Plot No.416 Gandhidham. Ward-2B Adipur-Kutch.

1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F

DUSHYANT BHARATBHAI MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD-(2)(1)(2) , RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, for the\n assessment year 2015-16.\n2. Grievances raised by the assessee are as follows.\n(1).The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding assessment of gain of Rs. 1,01,04,063/-\nas business income, as against long term capital gain and thereby, disallowing claim of\nexemption

SMT. KUSUMBEN AMRITLAL SANGHAVI,JAMNAGAR vs. THE DCIT ,CIRCLE, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 194/Rjt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Smt. Kusumben Amritlal Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Sanghavi Income Tax Vs. C/O. Kantilal & Circle-2, Jamnagar - Brothers, Grain Market, 361008 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afhps5412C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri D. S. Varia, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 06/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 30/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamnagar (‘The Cit(A)’), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.06.2017 Passed By The Learned Dcit, Circle-2, Jamnagar Under Section

capital gain scheme before purchase of the residential property before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. The case of the Revenue is this that the appellant is not entitled for ITA No. 194/Rjt/2019 (Smt. Kusumben A. Sanghavi vs. DCIT) A. Y. 2015-16 - 3- exemption under Section 54F

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) (5), , RAJKOT vs. SHRI DHIRAJLAL BHANJIBHAI VADALIA, RAJKOT

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dhirajlal Bhanjibhai Vadalia Cit-1, 1St Floor, Sterling Appts., Vs Rajkot. Jawahar Road, Rajkot.

capital gain was properly computed accordingly the deduction claimed u/s 54F and 54B were examined and endorsed by the A.O. It may also state that nothing comes out from your aforesaid notice as to how it is believed by you that the records do not show any agricultural income at least in two years prior to the date of transfer

SHRI DHIRAJLAL BHANJIBHAI VADALIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dhirajlal Bhanjibhai Vadalia Cit-1, 1St Floor, Sterling Appts., Vs Rajkot. Jawahar Road, Rajkot.

capital gain was properly computed accordingly the deduction claimed u/s 54F and 54B were examined and endorsed by the A.O. It may also state that nothing comes out from your aforesaid notice as to how it is believed by you that the records do not show any agricultural income at least in two years prior to the date of transfer

SHRI TULSHIBHAI POLABHAI SAKARIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 93/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year:2015-16 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Tulsibhai Polabhai Sakariya Vs. The Pr. C.I.T, 2-Bombay Housing Society, Rajkot-1, Meghdhara, University Road, Rajkot. Opp. G. K. Dholakiya, Rajkot

capital gain also claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act. The claim of the assessee was allowed by the AO in the assessment order framed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 13th December 2017. 5. Subsequently, the learned Pr. CIT found that the valuer without adopting realistic approach or scientific method valued the property at unrealistic value

YASMEEN WASEEM PARMAR ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT , JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.194/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Yasmeen Waseem Parmar, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Bawa No Delo, Opp. Old Post Income Tax, Office, Nagarpara Main Road, Jamnagar O/S. Khambhaliya Gate, Jamnagar, Gujarat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aijph3607F (Assessee) (Respondent)

gain computation considering the jantri value as sales consideration of Rs 50,63,325/- (@6.95% of 7,28,53,600) and after deducting indexed cost of purchase (Rs 35,19,278) and deduction u/s 54B of the Act (Rs 27,13,863) resulting in capital loss of Rs 11,69,816/-. Further it is seen that you have sold

SHRI SHARAD M. KUMBHANI,AMRELI vs. THE PR. CIT-3, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Sro, Rajula Vide Document No. 578/2014 On 07.04.2014 For A Sale Consideration Of Rs. 1,37,24,875/-. However, The Sro, Rajula Has Assessed/Valued The Said Land For Rs. 2,51,93,900/- As Per Jantry/Guideline Value & Stamp Duty. Therefore The Difference Between The Jantry Value & The Sale Consideration Is Of Rs. 1,14,69,025/- Should Be Added As Income As Per Section 50C Of The Act.

54F etc. 8. The said section requires that the capital gain on sale of agricultural land should be utilized for purchase of new asset within a period of two years after the date of transfer. I have satisfied this condition because the gain has been reinvested by registering the purchase on 25.03.2015 whereas the sale was effected

PARAS MEHTA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 2 (1) (2), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

capital gain to that extent last year. Therefore, the net investment made was only Rs. 86,19,297/-. Thus, the claim of Rs. 1,01,04,063/- u/s 54F during the year is excessive to the externt of Rs 14,84,766/- (Rs. 1,01,04,063 – Rs. 86,19,297). Therefore, the assessing officer held that the assessee